Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 29 May 2014 20:46:50 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> Wait, how is that not covered by .bool_set:N and .bool_set_inverse:N?
> Doing " turnfooingon .bool_set:N = \l_mymodule_fooing_bool " and "
> turnfooingoff .bool_set_inverse:N = \l_mymodule_fooing_bool " allows the
> user to use the keys turnfooingon and turnfooingoff as you describe. Well, it
> also allows the user to do weirder things like "turnfooingoff=false" to turn
> fooing on.
>
> Bruno
You're totally right: it is. I think I let my mind wander a bit when I was
writing the example... What's actually at issue is whether constructions
along the lines of
\mymoduledoclevelsetup{ fooing = activate }
\mymoduledoclevelsetup{ fooing = deactivate }
should be tacitly encouraged by making
\keys_define:nn { mymodule }
{
fooing .choice: ,
fooing/ activate .bool_set_true:N = \l_mymodule_fooing_bool ,
fooing / deactivate .bool_set_false:N = \l_mymodule_fooing_bool
}
available out of the box, or whether it's better to leave it to package
authors to use .code:n or some such alternative if they want to get
this behaviour.
Best,
Jura
|
|
|